Is Science Legitimate?
There is a deep-rooted arrogance in science; most people regard science as an objective, immutable fact for granted. But this conceit is justified because science is undeniably the best way to arrive at solid conclusions about the observable world using inductive reasoning. Science, using the framework of cause and effect as its foundational assumption, aims to test hypotheses by seeing which alterations (cause) in each experiment create a different result (effect). Science has been incredibly successful, providing technology, medicine, transportation, and innumerably more. However, despite its “objectivity,” a famous postmodernist thinker, Michel Foucault, argues against the legitimacy of science, claiming that we could seriously be hindered in our ability to think in the first place, thus demoting science from its status of being the “Truth.”
To elaborate, we must quickly discuss Foucault’s philosophy. Foucault doesn’t believe in freedom of thought; he claims that humans are under the illusion of free thought, but all thoughts are controlled by a small group of individuals that hold immense power in society. He argues that the world is just like an elaborate jail system, using Jeremy Bentham’s most effective prison model. Bentham says that the best prison system must have the following three criteria:
- Rules and expectations
- Constant surveillance
- Evaluation of the prisoner’s progress/behavior
The idea that rules and expectations must exist is quite simple: there should be a very clear set of things that one should and should not be able to do. For instance, a prison could have an 8 PM curfew. Constant surveillance is also extremely important. Prisons must give the illusion that all prisoners are under watch at all times. Bentham says that fitting the prison with one-way mirrors and letting the prisoners know that any guard could be watching on the other side at any time would produce this effect. Constant surveillance encourages individuals to always feel pressured to adhere to the rules. Last but not least, evaluation is important because it provides the actual incentive to follow rules: for instance, a prisoner who behaves well could have the evaluation of being released early.
But what does this prison system have anything to do with freedom of thought? As mentioned previously, to Foucault, society is a massive prison. There are certain expectations (rules) in people’s schools, jobs, and societal norms. These rules are reinforced by the illusion of surveillance: your school probably has access to your search history, people are always watching and judging you when you are outside, and there might be a CCTV somewhere in the building that people just have no idea about. And everyone is judged by some authority that could punish or reward, according to the surveillance of “good” and “bad” behaviors. For instance, your bosses could give you a bonus for working hard and staying on task, but they could also fire you if you are caught slacking off. The consequence of living in this prison model is that you become disciplined according to the rules and expectations. The question to ask here is who gets to choose the rules and expectations?
Foucault says that these expectations are set by a small group of individuals that hold power in society. He says that it is almost impossible to ever know who these people are, but they hold massive influence over everyone. He says that the prison system is so effective because, at one point, people do not even need to be actually monitored by a meticulous surveillance system, but actually become their own police, judging themselves on every action and feeling guilt, shame, and fear whenever they step out of the expectations.
How do all of these points relate to the problem with science? Foucault asserts that the people who are able to set such societal expectations can choose how people should think and ingrain it so deeply into their brains that it makes it extremely difficult or outright impossible to step out of line with their expectations. Under this idea, science is extremely limited because society is not capable of questioning beyond what it thinks of as “acceptable.” Even suggesting any scientific experiments that clash with our conditioned ideas would seem outlandishly absurd and would be dismissed instantly. For instance, let’s say that, for some reason, someone woke up one day and thought about going to work completely naked. This idea would be deemed crazy and shut down immediately. Similarly, Foucault suggests that scientists are extremely limited by such artificial constraints that have been put on us by other humans in power. These limitations would prevent scientists from even fathoming the chance that an experiment could be possible.
Foucault is not arguing against the efficacy of science in our daily lives. He argues that science, like any product of free thought, is extremely circumscribed by the societal prison system that makes everyone disciplined to the intents of a small handful of powerful people. He doesn’t believe that we shouldn’t use science but believes that it is not legitimate to think that it is an objective fact when all scientists are constrained by themselves.
A great source on Foucault and the main source of this article was Stephen West’s podcast, Philosophize This. He breaks down Foucault’s philosophy very clearly.
